Terrorist attacks in US don't use guns very much compared to other countries
Tthe National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) based at the University of Maryland put this report together. When the Assault Weapon Ban sunset in 2004, there were predictions that it would lead to more terrorist attacks, but this data suggests the percentage of attacks with guns has fallen, not increased. The low rate of terrorist attacks using gun in the US raises the question of whether it is just more difficult for US terrorists to get a hold of guns or whether there is just a lower return to using them.
Labels: GunControl, Terrorism
posted by John Lott at 12:08 AM
2 Comments:
What do explosives, incendiary devices, and chemical compounds all have in common?
Their use doesn't require you be where you might get shot by a law abiding citizen.
Perhaps it is simply a question of effectiveness...
If one looks at this from a perspective of the level of impact a terrorist attack that utilises firearms as the primary means to send a message, I would assume that due to media saturation of so called 'massacres' here in the U.S., the message simply becomes ineffective.
We have been bombarded for so long by our biased media we have become desensitised to gun violence here, hence the drop in firearms usage by terrorists.
Or, one can also present an argument as to the impact of guns versus an aircraft attack such as 9/11. Maybe it's both? Firearms are easy to obtain, but the effect of an Aircraft/NBC/Explosives style of attack carries far more of a message than simply shooting a mall up.
The results of the 9/11 attack on our economy, and the impact on U.S. citizens is plain for all to see. We are paying a very high price in not only money, but also in lost rights due to the typical knee jerk reaction of our government, which is exactly what happens everytime some mentally unstable individual goes on a 'shooting spree'. Gun control laws do not work, but the cost of deterring possible 'weapons of mass destruction' has a far greater impact on our society as a whole. Achmed wants a good return on his investment, so why bother with something that we are used to seeing every night on the news?
Post a Comment
<< Home